Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Open_Minded]

I'm jumping in late in the thread here - and have admittedly not read all of it. But... the question:

Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

Elicits only one thought from me.

Science has informed my personal mystical quest. And my personal mystical experiences have informed my reading and study of science.

Interdependence is interdependence and Oneness is Oneness. For me Science is not complete without Mysticism and Mysticism is not complete without Science.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm jumping in late in the thread here - and have admittedly not read all of it. But... the question:

Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

Elicits only one thought from me.

Science has informed my personal mystical quest. And my personal mystical experiences have informed my reading and study of science.

Interdependence is interdependence and Oneness is Oneness. For me Science is not complete without Mysticism and Mysticism is not complete without Science.

Thank you OM! BTW, shorting your username like this is perfect. OM, described in a Wiki article thus, "Hindus believe that as creation began, the divine, all-encompassing consciousness took the form of the first and original vibration manifesting as sound "OM", when you expand that with Open-Minded (OM), well there you have it! To Realize OM, you must open the mind.

Anyway, you have a lot of catch up to do in this thread. I'll jump back in here when I have some fresh insight and energy to bring to it. I do however realize there is no way logic arguments will "make sense" to anywhere where they "get it" using logic and reason. At best, logic and reason takes you do the door realizing logic and reason can go now further. Then it takes the will of mind to step beyond and "see".

Later....

 

[Windwalker]

Btw this isn't the only instance where you and Windwalker have been playing hide-the-ball on this thread .... you guys repeatedly invoke physics throughout the thread (e.g. this post, this post, this post, this post).

"You guys". I so love being called a "you guys". It's so, "respectful". Anyway, I am not playing hide the anything. It's right there in plain view and you just don't see it.

I've mentioned many times here that what you are dealing with is paradoxical, and you don't want it, or expect it, to be. What you see as "hiding the ball" is simply looking at the self-contradictory aspects of the paradox. OM, just said my position well in the post before mine here. I'm going to re-post what I quoted earlier which goes to this. I recommend reading that over, and let's keep your thoughts at this moment focused on this before I am willing to go further in trying to "explain" this.

I tire of going over the same points again and again, knowing that that is not what will "show" you what you need to see to "get it". The only way you will "see" it, is to step over, so to speak. Then it's like "Oh, that's obvious". Until then, well, there's only so far the mind can penetrate with logic and reason. Once penetrated, then it is entirely reasonable, like love is in that way.

To repost for you and others:

On the one hand, then, spirit is the highest of all possible domains; it is the Summit of all realms, the Being beyond all beings. It is the domain that is a subset of no other domain and thus preserves its radically transcendental nature. On the other hand, since spirit is all-pervading and all-inclusive, since it is the set of all possible sets, the Condition of all conditions and the Nature of all natures, it is not properly thought of as a realm set apart from other realms, but as the Ground of Being of all realms, the pure That of which all manifestation is but a play or modification. And thus spirit preserves (paradoxically) its radically immanent nature.

Now I labor on this apparently trivial point for what is really a very important reason. Because spirit can legitimately be referred to as both perfectly transcendent and perfectly immanent [that paradox], then if we aren't extremely careful which meaning we wish to convey we can play fast and loose with statements about what is or is not the realm of spirit. Thus, for example, if we emphasize soley the transcendental nature of spirit, then religion (and spirit) are obviously “out of this world” and have absolutely nothing in common with earth-bound science. Any attempt to identify spirit with the manifest world of nature is, in this truncated view, charged with the ugly epitaph of “featureless pantheism” and the theologians are all in a tither to explain that “dragging God into the finite realm” supposedly abolishes all values and actually destroys any meaning we could attach to the word “God” or “spirit”.

On the other hand if we commit the equal but opposite error and emphasize solely the immanent nature of spirit, then not only are science and religion compatible, but science becomes a subset of religion, and “The more we know of things [science], the more we know of God [religion]” [Spinoza]. Attempts to place God or spirit in any sort of transcendental “realm beyond” are met with howling charges of “dogmatism and nonsensicality,” and all congratulate themselves on solving the transcendental Mystery, whereas all they have done is ignore it.

Much of this confusion would evaporate if we (1) acknowledge the necessary paradoxicality of verbal formulations of spirit, and (2) simply indicate which aspect of spirit - transcendent or immanent - we mean at any given time. This is not a philosophical nicety; it is an absolutely crucial prerequisite to making any meaningful statement about the role in relation of science and religion.

~ Ken Wilber, Quantum Questions, pp. 14, 15
​

[Emphasis mine]

When we refer to reality, small r, that is Samsara, the manifest realm. When we refer to Reality, big R,that is the Groundless Ground, from which Samsara rises. I actually would prefer to say Spirit, as that might help jar you beyond thinking of what you see and touch and measure with science. Maybe that might help break this fixation on "reality" you can't seem to get past?

 

[godnotgod]

I do however realize there is no way logic arguments will "make sense" to anywhere where they "get it" using logic and reason. At best, logic and reason takes you do the door realizing logic and reason can go now further. Then it takes the will of mind to step beyond and "see".

If you've never come across the following Taoist piece, I think you will enjoy it, in light of your comments above:

*The Lost Pearl*

The Yellow Emperor went wandering
To the north of the Red Water
To the Kwan Lun mountain. He looked around
Over the edge of the world. On the way home
He lost his night-colored pearl*.
He sent out Science to seek his pearl,
and got nothing.
He sent Analysis to look for his pearl,
and got nothing.
He sent out Logic to seek his pearl,
and got nothing.
Then he asked Nothingness, and
Nothingness had it!
The Yellow Emperor said:
“Strange, indeed: Nothingness
Who was not sent
Who did no work to find it
Had the night-colored pearl!”

from “The Way of Chuang Tzu,” trans Merton

*night-colored pearl = 'original nature'

 

[Willamena]

Is the experience of Reality merely a question of 'potayto' or 'potahto'? I don't think so.

If it isn't, then there is an "objective reality" and Brahman is not alone.

 

[darkendless]

T
Anyway, you have a lot of catch up to do in this thread. I'll jump back in here when I have some fresh insight and energy to bring to it. I do however realize there is no way logic arguments will "make sense" to anywhere where they "get it" using logic and reason. At best, logic and reason takes you do the door realizing logic and reason can go now further. Then it takes the will of mind to step beyond and "see".

Later....

I never know what to make of these arguments. In light of several lefties on my facebook who need a real job and crack it when I poke holes in their philosophical day to day ramblings on what would improve the world they always seem to bring up some nonsense about "not seeing things" and how they are "higher up" in thought than us basic realists.

To me this "higher up" or "further" as you would put it reeks of arrogance in a sense that "seeing" seems to be in the eye of the beholder in which some miraculous epiphany occurs and somehow simple realists are just that.

Like I said, I don't know what to make of people and their claims that they "see beyond" anything than the jargon their mind serves up.

 

[Windwalker]

I never know what to make of these arguments. In light of several lefties on my facebook who need a real job and crack it when I poke holes in their philosophical day to day ramblings on what would improve the world they always seem to bring up some nonsense about "not seeing things" and how they are "higher up" in thought than us basic realists.

To me this "higher up" or "further" as you would put it reeks of arrogance in a sense that "seeing" seems to be in the eye of the beholder in which some miraculous epiphany occurs and somehow simple realists are just that.

Like I said, I don't know what to make of people and their claims that they "see beyond" anything than the jargon their mind serves up.

I think it was Hafiz who said this (if not someone please correct me). "To say I am God is the most humble thing a person can say".

If you can process what that means, you might not see it as arrogant.

 

[darkendless]

I think it was Hafiz who said this (if not someone please correct me). "To say I am God is the most humble thing a person can say".

If you can process what that means, you might not see it as arrogant.

LaVeyan Satanism teaches something similar and is a former path of mine when I was a lot younger and foolish.

I found myself developing arrogance as a result of this sort of sentiment.

I find listening to the experience of others and relying on reality much more challenging than convincing myself that i'm right about what I want to be right about (this doesn't make much sense).

 

[Willamena]

LaVeyan Satanism teaches something similar and is a former path of mine when I was a lot younger and foolish.

I found myself developing arrogance as a result of this sort of sentiment.

I find listening to the experience of others and relying on reality much more challenging than convincing myself that i'm right about what I want to be right about (this doesn't make much sense).

It makes fine sense.

 

[darkendless]

It makes fine sense.

I'm relieved someone else got it

 

[YmirGF]

I'm relieved someone else got it

Take heart, it's not just you.

 

[Willamena]

"You guys". I so love being called a "you guys". It's so, "respectful". Anyway, I am not playing hide the anything. It's right there in plain view and you just don't see it.

I've mentioned many times here that what you are dealing with is paradoxical, and you don't want it, or expect it, to be. What you see as "hiding the ball" is simply looking at the self-contradictory aspects of the paradox. OM, just said my position well in the post before mine here. I'm going to re-post what I quoted earlier which goes to this. I recommend reading that over, and let's keep your thoughts at this moment focused on this before I am willing to go further in trying to "explain" this.

I tire of going over the same points again and again, knowing that that is not what will "show" you what you need to see to "get it". The only way you will "see" it, is to step over, so to speak. Then it's like "Oh, that's obvious". Until then, well, there's only so far the mind can penetrate with logic and reason. Once penetrated, then it is entirely reasonable, like love is in that way.

I suspect this idea to be about as helpful as Christians who proclaim that to attain salvation you just have to believe. One person telling another that they are on the other side of a fence just creates a fence between them.

When we refer to reality, small r, that is Samsara, the manifest realm. When we refer to Reality, big R,that is the Groundless Ground, from which Samsara rises. I actually would prefer to say Spirit, as that might help jar you beyond thinking of what you see and touch and measure with science. Maybe that might help break this fixation on "reality" you can't seem to get past?

Perhaps getting away from the dual image of reality might help? It is, in its own way, a fixation on the immanent at the expense of the transcendent.

 

[Windwalker]

LaVeyan Satanism teaches something similar and is a former path of mine when I was a lot younger and foolish.

I found myself developing arrogance as a result of this sort of sentiment.

Then you weren't ready. Arrogance is the result when the ego is still immature. People take spirituality and use to it compensate for a weak ego. That's where arrogance comes from. There is a reason the great traditions don't expose their inner secrets to those who aren't ready. This is why.

I find listening to the experience of others and relying on reality much more challenging than convincing myself that i'm right about what I want to be right about (this doesn't make much sense).

Then this is what is right for you. Pursue it.

 

[Windwalker]

Perhaps getting away from the dual image of reality might help? It is, in its own way, a fixation on the immanent at the expense of the transcendent.

Getting away from a dual image is exactly the goal. Science is a dualistic view. What is your suggestion to break that dualistic view?

 

[darkendless]

Then you weren't ready. Arrogance is the result when the ego is still immature. People take spirituality and use to it compensate for a weak ego. That's where arrogance comes from. There is a reason the great traditions don't expose their inner secrets to those who aren't ready. This is why.


Then this is what is right for you. Pursue it.

Everyone has an ego. It's difficult to count how many time on this forum a mystic has told me "don't worry, i'm right, but you'll never understand why" in similar words.

It's more concerning that it seems to be convincing ones self they're right about their thoughts, much the same as christianity and faith.

 

[Windwalker]

Everyone has an ego.

Of course (except for an infant and early childhood development). But an ego does not equate with egocentricity. Egocentric, or arrogant, is a compensation for a lack of a healthy, well-developed ego. Ego is good. But even then, egocentricity is proper for a child in order to learn who they are as a person, distinct from the other; "me, not me; mine, yours, etc". Eventually as the child matures the narrow center moves out to include seeing themselves in others, etc, until you hit the mature ego where they are stable in their self-identity, wider and broader than the developing ego of a child. If you are familiar with Maslow, the self-actualized individual is the highest mature ego. Do not mistake ego, with egotism.

It's difficult to count how many time on this forum a mystic has told me "don't worry, i'm right, but you'll never understand why" in similar words.

I'm not saying what I am like this. I do not say "I'm right, and your wrong". You are right for how you are understanding the world. I am simply say that there is a larger perspective available than our 'average mode, consensus-consciousness'. Different modes of awareness to be had. That's all.

It's more concerning that it seems to be convincing ones self they're right about their thoughts, much the same as christianity and faith.

No. Not from my perspective. I don't think in terms of "right and wrong" as those are about mental concepts about propositional truths. I'm talking about experience.

 

[YmirGF]

I think it was Hafiz who said this (if not someone please correct me). "To say I am God is the most humble thing a person can say".

Evidently the Muslims around Hafiz did not much agree with his sentiments and made him a head shorter for his thoughts.

If memory serves correctly, this is actually a bastardization of a Rumi quote. Hafiz was famous for saying something to the effect that, "There is nothing but god under my turbin," Again, his fellow Muslims didn't feel the love in his thinking...

If you can process what that means, you might not see it as arrogant.

He is alluding to the dissolution of self, so that only god remains.

 

[Willamena]

Getting away from a dual image is exactly the goal. Science is a dualistic view. What is your suggestion to break that dualistic view?

Stop talking about reality with a big R and a little r.

Address the one reality in its image. Address the one truth in all things in its image. Don't be intimidated by talk of "just your opinion," it's understood (by most) that there is nothing else.

A grasp of non-dualism doesn't lie in anything said, but in the foundation of image that supports what is said.

 

[YmirGF]

What is your suggestion to break that dualistic view?

It might be helpful to construct arguments that are meaningful TO that dualistic view without relying on the bias of an inherently "superior" view that is allegedly held by the so-called mystic. Flattery or at least not insulting the intelligence of the dualistic thinker, might be a good place to begin.

What I mean is that it is of little value if I construct an argument that has other mystics all hot and bothered, slapping cosmic high fives, and yet the same argument makes Penumbra and Mr Spinkles just sit there blinking at their screens. That is just singing to the choir. If you want to reach a far larger audience the message must, necessarily, be couched in subtler terms - that at least have a ring of authenticity to them.

 

[Windwalker]

Evidently the Muslims around Hafiz did not much agree with his sentiments and made him a head shorter for his thoughts.

If memory serves correctly, this is actually a bastardization of a Rumi quote. Hafiz was famous for saying something to the effect that, "There is nothing but god under my turbin," Again, his fellow Muslims didn't feel the love in his thinking...

Not that we don't see that here too? Fortunately, there are no beheadings allowed in this country, nor a government run by those who show God's love this way. :bow:

He is alluding to the dissolution of self, so that only god remains.

Bingo. As I posted in my previous response about the ego, you do move beyond the ego, though the ego is always part of you, just as your body is with its arms and legs and guts and things. The difference is just this: the center of your self-identification moves beyond the body (though your retain the body and it is part of what makes you "you"); and the center of self-identity moves beyond the ego in the same way. It's still your personality, emotional makeup, quirks and whatnot, but who "you" are moves into something "larger" more expansive, all the way "up" until that identification is with, and as, the All. God.

That is not arrogance, as arrogance is a feature of the ego. Whenever arrogance arises, that means I'm back in my ego struggling with the question, "Who am I?". It's a symptom of something that needs to be looked at and dealt with.